Skip to main content

News Management

In the immediate aftermath of September 11 2001, a scandal broke in this country after Jo Moore, a new Labour special adviser to then secretary of state for transport Stephen Byers, sent an email to colleagues suggesting this was "a very good day to get out anything we want to bury."  Her logic was that, when a mammoth news story breaks, the government has a window of opportunity through which to shunt into a black hole any news that would otherwise make the government more unpopular.  This was classic new Labour news management - completely immoral, but effective. And we've seen similar behaviour over more recent scandals.

The Treasury recently announced that it would insure £325 billion of toxic assets from Royal Bank of Scotland while pumping an extra £13 billion into the loss-making bank.  After bailing out the banks in October with £500 billion of taxpayers' money, these developments must have worried the government.  Would the public be prepared to keep funding the banks, while the banks were still acting as private businesses, were not lending in such a manner as to stabilise the economy, and, in some cases, were still charging high rates of interest?

The government responded by concentrating the media's attention on the pension of Sir Fred Goodwin (above), the 50-year-old recently retired chairman of RBS who will receive about £700,000 per annum for the remainder of his lifetime.  This story hogged the news limelight for the best part of a week, distracting everyone from the real news; the government had further burdened the British taxpayer - now to the extent of a year's GDP.

It is time for the government to come clean and stop trying to hide the truth that, while it has authorised a taxpayer bailout of the banks, the way it has done it means that neither the taxpayer nor the government will be able to keep them in check.  It is a very clever trick to hide this terrible truth behind fulminations from government ministers against the greed of the bankers, as though there were nothing wrong with the system.  But it is now time for them to stop banging on about Goodwin and start the real task of reorganising our entire banking system in the public interest.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...

Stansted: a reflection

The key question, in relation to protsts like that at Stansted last week, is: which side are you on? Are you on the side of big corporations profiteering from completely unsustainable climate-destructive behaviour? Or are you on the side of people with no vested interests just making a non-violent stand, at considerable cost to their own time and money, for the sake of all our futures? It doesn't seem to me a hard judgement to make... Rupert Read Green Party Councillor, Norwich, and Lead Candidate for Eastern Region for the Greens in the 2009 Euro-elections. DID YOU KNOW: A vote of about 10% across Eastern Region on June 4 2009 would be enough to get me elected to the European Parliament... http://rupertsread.blogspot.com